Hey, Just weighing in here.
Ben, you listed several "tricky" situations, and gave detailed definitions of the situation on the ground. I suggest tagging according to what is on the ground, rather than getting caught up in how to summarise all this nice information in a single overarching tag. For example, one of your tricky situations: "A council map says this is a cycle route, but there are no markings. In fact the council does not use road signs or paint to mark any of its "cycle route". This is tricky, but I would not mark this in OSM, as the (copyright) map cannot be verified on the ground." I would tag that situation basically like this: "council map says this is a cycle route" --> lcn=yes + source:lcn=council_map "there are no markings" --> lcn:signed=no + source:lcn:signed=survey If you try to add any more information, or try to distill this clear information into a single tag, that will ALWAYS be "tricky". Leave the tricky decisions to the map producer/router. IMHO. :-) On Sun, Dec 2, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Ben Kelley <ben.kel...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi. > > I think we should specify a little more what constitutes a cycle route on > the tagging guidelines. > > Some background: For the cycle map layer you can tag any way as a local > cycle route (lcn=*), a regional cycle route (rcn=*) or a national cycle > route (ncn=*). The tag can be applied to the way, or a relation can be > defined. On the cycle map these ways are highlighted, and some routing > engines use this information to route cyclists differently to other > vehicles. (e.g. ridethecity.com) > > In some sense, any street or path you can ride a bike on is a potential > "cycle route", but I don't think this makes it a cycle route in the OSM > sense. > > I would reason that the way (streets especially) need some kind of marking > (signs, or road markings such as painted bike symbols) to indicate that the > arm of government who maintains that street has designated the street to be > a cycle route, before we mark it as a cycle route in OSM. Does that seem > reasonable? > > Where it gets more complicated is when we start to think what kind of > marking we should expect to see on the ground before we say that this is a > cycle route in the OSM sense. The same applies when deciding that some > street is not really a cycle route. > > Note that I am not talking about a legal definition on whether you can > ride a bike there (bicycle=yes or bicycle=no), and I am not talking about > how we tag paths/footpaths/cycleways. That is a different discussion. > > How about the following cases: (bicycle=yes is true for all of these) > > Some that are not cycle routes: > > * Normal residential street. No road markings. No signs. No maps listing > this street as a cycle route. I would say this is not a cycle route. > * As above, but where I think this is a handy street to ride down. I would > say this is not a cycle route. > * As above, but where some other people also think this is a handy street > to ride down (and in fact I saw some just the other day). Again, not a > cycle route in the OSM sense. > * As above, but there is a council map that says this street is a cycle > route. (The map also lists other streets as cycle routes, and other streets > do have signs, but this street does not.) I have found this to be fairly > common. I would say this is not a cycle route. > > Tricky ones: > > * A council map says this is a cycle route, but there are no markings. In > fact the council does not use road signs or paint to mark any of its "cycle > route". This is tricky, but I would not mark this in OSM, as the > (copyright) map cannot be verified on the ground. > * A section of street that does not have any markings connects other > streets that do have markings (e.g. bike symbols painted on the road). > Cyclists commonly use this street to connect. Maps show this street as a > cycle route. This also is tricky. > * A shared use path that does not connect to any other known cycle routes. > I would probably not mark this as a cycle route, but it depends on where it > is. > * A section of road has a cycle lane (where the law requires cyclists to > ride in it), but the section of road does not connect to any other known > cycle routes. Again tricky, and it probably depends on where it is. > > Easier ones: > > * In states where riding on footpaths is normally not allowed, a shared > use path that connects known (marked) cycle routes. Yes this is a cycle > route. > * A number of other maps show this as a cycle route. It has bikes painted > on the road. Signs every 500m saying "Cycle Route". Signs at every > intersection with a picture of a bike, and showing the destination. Yes > this is a cycle route. > > I can think of more tricky edge cases, but in general I am more concerned > with whether some physical presence on the ground is required, as opposed > to "I thought this might be a nice street to ride my bike down." > > - Ben Kelley. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
